|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 5:14:49 GMT
In response to the issue of giving money to the homeless, it is true that we may not know what exactly they will spend the money on; however that doesn't excuse us from helping someone in need as this is our shared responsibility. To automatically assume that someone on the street is an addict, and even if they are, to simply assume this seems to directly contradict the concept of shared responsibility. Additionally, to assume families are the only ones deserving of help is cruel. By claiming only families should receive help we are ignoring impoverished students, veterans unable to work, or the mentally ill. This idea of selectively giving aid seems to force certain people to pull themselves up simply because they do not live with anyone. By intervening with individual people, the spread of poverty might be alleviated through assisting those who have not had children yet and therefore ensuring that their future children are not born into poverty themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Z on Jan 14, 2016 6:26:32 GMT
Many here have mentioned the difficulty of differentiating the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. First of all, I don't believe that anyone in America, no matter how irresponsible their actions may have been, deserves to live in the state of American poverty. Likewise, while there are those who exploit the welfare system in this country to avoid work, and those people do, every so slightly, drain the government's resources, we cannot simply ignore the genuine need of millions of families essentially trapped in poverty. The reality is, a life on welfare is not comfortable or secure by any measure, and as a result, it is rare that people intentionally stay reliant upon it. I feel that it is worth funding the irresponsible activities of those few for the sake of supporting the millions who have a dire need for the most basic of resources in this, the richest country on earth. But where is that money going to come from? All taxpayers? Only the 1%? Of course we should provide financial aid for every impoverished person, deserving or undeserving, but the step of how this is done is blurred. If we could just give every American all the money they needed, we wouldn't have poverty at all would we. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 14, 2016 6:40:19 GMT
I agree with Andrew. The consequences of doing nothing are far greater than the consequences of allowing a small number of people to take advantage of help from the government or wealthy people. Additionally, I understand the importance of helping people with children, as the goal is to end the cycle of poverty. But what about all of the impoverished Americans without children? How do we provide aid to them based on their value as individuals, not forgetting them just because they don't have families?
|
|
|
|
Post by meganmcdonnell on Jan 14, 2016 6:51:22 GMT
I agree with Andrew, that even if a small portion of the funding incidentally goes towards people who are perhaps not perfectly deserving of it - not because of their economic standing, but because of other issues surrounding mental health, vices, etc. - it will be well worth the effort for those people who are desperate for some kind of help, assistance, and rehabilitation. Andrew brings up a good point: we concern ourselves with what is being "lost" and lose sight of what is being gained. And for many of the families and people in the poorest communities in America, that gain means everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by natashaauer on Jan 14, 2016 8:33:30 GMT
I agree with Andrew's point about the "difficulty of differentiating between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor". All big changes come with sacrifice- it is impossible to alleviate or reduce poverty without having a negative consequence. We cannot just shoot down a big idea that could help millions because a couple hundred thousand might abuse the system; there are millions of deserving people and families out there that need to put all of their time and energy into barely sustaining themselves and are in dire need of financial aid. Alleviating them of the worry of feeding their kids or paying for the rent would enable them to focus on improving their kids' lives by emphasizing their education, in turn bettering their kid's socioeconomic standings, and therefore bettering America as a whole
|
|
|
|
Post by alissamcnerney on Jan 14, 2016 10:06:50 GMT
I agree with Andrew that the genuine need of millions of people living in poverty should not be overlooked because a minority waste the money, and even if some of the money is being wasted, the choice to be able to improve their condition should not be taken away. The relatively small amount of money wasted given to people who will not use it to help improve their life, is worth the great number of people given the opportunity to change their life for the better through financial aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by katedenend on Jan 14, 2016 16:16:16 GMT
I agree with Andrew because the majority of the impoverished would positively take advantage of the opportunity to leave poverty, however there are people in this country that do misuse their opportunity. Since there is no way of knowing who will misuse the money, a more structured support system could eliminate some of the risk of people negatively taking advantage of the system. A more structured system can come in many forms. For example, for the the people just laid of from a job, money could be provided for the necessities while they search for a new job, but for the individuals and families facing long term poverty, mandatory job training or assisted job search could be provided to ensure people were using their time and aid effectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashgordan on Jan 14, 2016 20:06:36 GMT
I, like the people before me, agree with Andrew. I think we have a moral responsibility to help others in whatever way we can. Building off this, I would also love to point to this article, which might make you feel so guilty about ever thinking about condemning poverty as an individual responsibility that you will pick up the phone and donate your life savings. Though it relates more to each of our personal responsibility to help one another rather than any government intervention, I think it is still quite relevant to the topic at hand. Enjoy. www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm |
|
|
|
Post by fionalokey on Jan 14, 2016 23:46:33 GMT
Going off of what Andrew said, it is better to help families trying to make a difference while helping a few people to exploit the system than to do nothing at all. Those born into a situation of disadvantage should not be punished because others have acted in a manner that is frowned upon. There are also other ways to aid those in need, as mentioned above. By raising teacher salaries and providing schools with the tools they so desperately need people living in rougher situations will have the tools to educate themselves. Education has proven time and time again to be the key to success. By allowing people to have a higher potential for academic excellence, people will have the desire to expand their knowledge to other fields and find jobs that pay fair wages and better society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Eastwood on Jan 15, 2016 8:18:53 GMT
In regard to Andrew's statement: "I don't believe that anyone in America, no matter how irresponsible their actions may have been, deserves to live in the state of American poverty." just as a clarification, are you saying that there would be a difference between poverty and "american poverty", if so what would it be? Or was it just a slip? Nothing against the post, just curious.
|
|
